Contrast agent distribution in microvascular damage of infarcted pig myocardium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We determined whether reperfusion damage was sufficient to allow extravasation of a large molecular weight contrast agent into infarcted pig myocardium. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five pig hearts were subjected to in situ occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery (2 h) followed by reperfusion (1 h). The hearts were excised and perfused in the Langendorff mode for ex vivo MR imaging. Polylysine-Gd-DTPA (50,000 Da) and Gd-DTPA (500-700 Da) were injected into the aorta (alternately) and followed by measurements of T1 relaxation and mean transit time (MTT). RESULTS: In the normal myocardium, MTT of Gd-DTPA (56.8+/-23.2 s) was significantly (p=0.02) longer than that of polylysine-Gd-DTPA (29.0+/-7 s). However, both normal and infarcted myocardium showed similar MTT (29.0+/-7.0 vs. 28.0+/-5.0 s, p>0.05) when using polylysine-Gd-DTPA. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the permeability of capillaries to polylysine-Gd-DTPA was not significantly higher in infarcted regions of the myocardium compared to normal tissue. However, infarcted myocardium displayed an increased permeability to the small molecular weight Gd-DTPA. We conclude that microvascular damage may not be sufficient to allow the extravasation of polylysine-Gd-DTPA in infarcted myocardium.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".